We must do everything possible to avoid an enormously destructive war in Ukraine Bernie Sanders

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

We should be clear about who is most responsible for this looming crisis: Vladimir Putin. Having already seized parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Russian president now threatens to take over the entire country and destroy Ukrainian democracy. In my view, we must unequivocally support the sovereignty of Ukraine and make clear that the international community will impose severe consequences on Putin and his associates if he does not change course.

With that said, I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar drumbeats in Washington, the bellicose rhetoric that gets amplified before every war, demanding that we must “show strength”, “get tough” and not engage in “appeasement”. A simplistic refusal to recognize the complex roots of the tensions in the region undermines the ability of negotiators to reach a peaceful resolution.

One of the precipitating factors of this crisis, at least from Russia’s perspective, is the prospect of an enhanced security relationship between Ukraine and the United States and western Europe, including what Russia sees as the threat of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (Nato), a military alliance originally created in 1949 to confront the Soviet Union.

It is good to know some history. When Ukraine became independent after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russian leaders made clear their concerns about the prospect of former Soviet states becoming part of Nato and positioning hostile military forces along Russia’s border. US leaders recognized these concerns as legitimate at the time. They are still legitimate concerns. Invasion by Russia is not an answer; neither is intransigence by Nato. It is also important to recognize that Finland, one of the most developed and democratic countries in the world, borders Russia and has chosen not to be a member of Nato.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/we-must-do-everything-possible-avoid-enormously-destructive-war-ukraine

[Hoyt]

1. Agree with Sanders on this one.

[questionseverything]

3. Yes, war with Russia/china will be the end of the world as we know it

N/t

[empedocles]

2. I have to disagree

[BeckyDem]

4. K&R

The hawks always come out of the woodwork, they're never far beneath the surface.

[Magoo48]

5. The hawks are well paid carnival barkers for the Clowns of the Apocalypse. (aka MIC)

[BeckyDem]

11. I agree that is the incentive for many but there is also a

determination to be top dog at any cost.

[Magoo48]

12. I believe you are correct. Perhaps the mindset can be traced back to edicts made by 14th century

popes and monarchs. Perhaps lingering manifest destiny thinking or American Exceptionalism.

One thing for sure is greed combined with top dog thinking is extremely dangerous.

[Beastly Boy]

6. A ridiculous argument all around.

As far as I know, no country was ever invaded to be made a member of NATO. Nor is Ukraine at risk of being invaded by NATO. On the other hand, Russia invaded both Ukraine and Georgia to quell their clearly expressed sovereign and national aspirations to become member of NATO. We are talking about independent countries under occupation by a belligerent enemy, for gawd's sake! Russia has "concerns" about their neighbors begging to join NATO? Did Bermnie ever consider that, perhaps, it is the direct consequence of Russia, not NATO, being their belligerent neighbor? And how does Russia's invasion, which already cost tens of thousands Ukrainian lives, quell Putin's "legitimate" concerns? What is the US supposed to do about Russia amplifying its concerns, not with rhetoric, but with its hostile, illegitimate and deadly actions?

It is, indeed, good to know some history. A quick and still ongoing history lesson for Bernie: Russia has already invaded Ukraine, and it didn't ask NATO's opinion about it. And I wonder how long Bernie thinks it will take Finland, one of the most developed and democratic countries in the world bordering Russia, to reconsider joining NATO in light of Russian troops marching across international borders to invade their neighbor.

"It's Putin's fault, but... NATO!" is a piss poor excuse for an argument.

[TomWilm]

14. Yes, it is, indeed, good to know some history ...

... mine is different. I grew up in a world, where the NATO alliance freely invited very undemocratic junta governments into its core. Founding member Portugal, was later followed by Greece and Turkey, none of these was to be proud of then. Today Turkey is as bad as ever, and to support the bad taste, NATO has a club of best friends. Which are the rest of the dictators of Europe, like Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan... in a Partnership for Peace. Next level is also the close friends of the US, all the dictators of the Middle East, like Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. None of them are nice places for their own population...

There is lots of countries around, invaded by the US, some of them with the help from NATO. Not to be invited in as members, but to be forced into some kind of official "friendship" after regime changes and such.

Putin is a bastard, but not so much more of a bastard than many the above mentioned. The get military aid and diplomatic support to stay in power, since the West "needs" them that way. Their populations are not offered regime change - we like them to stay how they are. No help given, but to the dictators at the top.

That is another truth, painted to be the opposite of your. Reality is somewhere in between...

[Uncle Joe]

8. Welcome to D.U. DesertGarden,

anytime our nation is considering decisions that could result in war, or major armed conflict, it's absolutely critical for all our political leaders to speak their mind on the issue.

Whether they all agree on the issue in whole, part, parcel or not at all.

Optimally all members of Congress should be crystal clear in their beliefs because the American People need to know in order to make our most sound deliberations.

I believe one of the major dysfunctions with Congresses has been its' near abandonment in decisions of war and peace, deferring far too often to the executive and this being just another way in avoiding accountability to the people, same as the filibuster.

One Senator can tie up anything with a filibuster and if we don't have sixty to override all Senators get a free pass on even voting.

Meanwhile the American People are left in the dark as to which Senator is standing for exactly what when push comes to shove, because none in the "world's greatest deliberative body" had to actually vote.

[happy feet]

9. I agree

[TomWilm]

13. Hypocritical for the US to insist not to accept the principle of "spheres of influence"

From the same speech:

M. President, Vladimir Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical for the United States to insist that we do not accept the principle of “spheres of influence.” For the last 200 years our country has operated under the Monroe Doctrine, embracing the premise that as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has the right to intervene against any country that might threaten our alleged interests. Under this doctrine we have undermined and overthrown at least a dozen governments. In 1962 we came to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union in response to the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from our shore, which the Kennedy Administration saw as an unacceptable threat to our national security.

And the Monroe Doctrine is not ancient history. As recently as 2018 Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, called the Monroe Doctrine “as relevant today as it was the day it was written.” In 2019, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton declared “the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.”

To put it simply, even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a U.S. adversary?

Countries should be free to make their own foreign policy choices, but making those choices wisely requires a serious consideration of the costs and benefits. The fact is that the U.S. and Ukraine entering into a deeper security relationship is likely to have some very serious costs – for both countries.

[Beastly Boy]

15. I see nothing that suggests the US doesn't accept the PRINCIPLE of spheres of influence.

Nor does Bernie make a difference between maintaining (or even expanding) spheres of influence and an outright occupation of a sovereign country by force. Russia has occupied Ukraine after being unable to keep it within its sphere of influence. Ukraine, despite the occupation, is still not within Russia's sphere of influence.

US insists on the principle of sovereignty, not against the orinciple of spheres of influence. Russia has a long history of resorting to the latter when it gails at the former, and Bernie can't seem to tell the difference between the two.

[TomWilm]

16. Blinken: We can't have countries exerting spheres of influence...

US insists very much against the orinciple of spheres of influence:

SECRETARY BLINKEN:
... This goes to some basic principles of international relations that are what guarantee peace and security: the principle that one nation can’t simply change the borders of another by force; the principle that one nation can’t dictate to another its choices and with whom it will associate; the principle that we can’t have countries exerting spheres of influence to subjugate their neighbors. That should be a relic of the past. All of that is what is in play here. That’s why it’s so important that we stand not only for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, its sovereignty and its independence, but for these basic principles.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-with-george-stephanopoulos-of-abc-this-week/

[Beastly Boy]

17. With all due respect to Blinken, his interview with Stephanopulous does not constitute a doctrine.

At best, it is a sentiment. A call for the Monroe Doctrine to some day be a relic of the past.

[TomWilm]

18. Please come back after doing just a little googling....

The full rejection of spheres of influence is a formal US policy, now pressed onto NATO itself.

You can start at this link:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/russia-has-no-right-to-establish-a-sphere-of-influence-nato-chief-says/

[Beastly Boy]

19. NATO chief?

When was the Monroe Doctrine adopted by NATO?

Googling is easy. Finding something of relevance... ain't so much, is it?

[TomWilm]

20. Thousands of hits, actually...

https://www.google.com/search?q="spheres+of+influence"+russia+site:gov&tbs=qdr:y

US started the fiction, that the Monroe Doctrine was a thing of the past, and no country was no more allowed such games. Why the f*ck should NATO have adopted the Monroe Doctrine, since the arguments of the United States against Russia now is the opposite of that?

Secretary of State John Kerry: “The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/11/john-kerry-the-monroe-doctrine-is-over.html

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “The United States does not recognize spheres of influence.”
https://www.rferl.org/a/Clinton_Heads_To_Georgia/2091014.html

... I like educated talks, so I will leave you alone...